09-005002 Department Of Children And Family Services vs. Traceann Handy Family Day Care Home And Traceann Handy
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Wednesday, January 13, 2010.


View Dockets  
Summary: Petitioner met its burden of proof to show existence of violation, but the amount of the penalty is mitigated by circumstances.

1STATE OF FLORIDA

4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

8DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND )

13FAMILY SERVICES, )

16)

17Petitioner, )

19)

20vs. ) Case No. 09-5002

25)

26TRACEANN HANDY FAMILY DAY CARE HOME AND TRACEANN HANDY, )

36)

37)

38Respondents. )

40)

41RECOMMENDED ORDER

43Pursuant to notice, a final hearing was conducted in this

53case on October 27 and December 10, 2009, in Ft. Myers, Florida,

65before Administrative Law Judge R. Bruce McKibben of the

74Division of Administrative Hearings.

78APPEARANCES

79For Petitioner: Eugenie G. Rehak, Esquire

85Department of Children and

89Family Services

91Post Office Box 60085

95Fort Myers, Florida 33901

99For Respondents: Traceann Handy, pro se

105Traceann Handy Family Daycare Home

1104423 32nd Avenue Southwest

114Naples, Florida 34116

117STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

121The issue in this case is whether Respondents violated

130provisions of Chapter 402, Florida Statutes, 1 and Florida

139Administrative Code Chapter 65C-20, and, if so, what penalty

148should be imposed.

151PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

153Petitioner, Department of Children and Family Services

160(hereinafter the "Department"), filed an Administrative

167Complaint on July 29, 2009. The Administrative Complaint

175alleged violations of regulations governing the operation of

183family day care homes and imposed an administrative fine of one

194thousand dollars ($1,000.00). Respondents, Traceann Handy and

202Traceann Handy Family Day Care Home (hereinafter jointly

210referred to as "Respondent"), filed a response to the

220Administrative Complaint which was accepted by the Department as

229a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing. The

236Administrative Complaint and response were forwarded to the

244Division of Administrative Hearings ("DOAH") and assigned to the

255undersigned Administrative Law Judge. Pursuant to notice, a

263final hearing was commenced on October 27, 2009, in Fort Myers,

274Florida. Due to issues concerning Respondent's schedule, the

282hearing was adjourned prior to its completion and then

291rescheduled for completion on December 10, 2009. The final

300hearing was concluded on that date.

306At the final hearing, Respondent represented herself and

314called the following witnesses: Shawn Burger, Respondent's

321husband; and Traceann Handy, Respondent. No exhibits were

329accepted into evidence from Respondent.

334The Department called six witnesses: Bonny Wolbach, child

342care licensing counselor; James Palmer, child care licensing

350section; Dayna Provost, child protection investigator; Bruce

357Alexander, criminal background screening section; Donnette

363Anderson, certified child protection investigator; and Alice

370Parrish, child care licensing supervisor. Alice Parrish was

378called again for rebuttal. The Department offered Exhibits 1

387through 14, all of which were admitted.

394The undersigned was advised that no transcript would be

403ordered. The parties agreed to file their proposed findings of

413fact and conclusions of law by December 21, 2009. Respondent

423timely submitted a Proposed Recommended Order; the Department's

431Proposed Recommended Order was received on December 30, 2009. 2

441Each was duly considered in the preparation of this Recommended

451Order.

452FINDINGS OF FACT

4551. Respondent Traceann Handy owns and operates Traceann

463Handy Family Day Care Home, a child care facility licensed by

474the Department. On May 26, 2009, the facility had been

484inspected by the Department and found to be in compliance with

495the rules of operation. Due to some missing documentation

504(CPR and first aid certificates), the facility was issued a

514Provisional License. As of the date the final hearing in this

525matter was concluded, the documentation had been submitted, and

534the facility had a valid license to operate. 3

5432. The Department is responsible for inspecting,

550licensing, and monitoring child care facilities such as the one

560operated by Handy. It is the Department's responsibility to

569ensure that all such facilities are safe and secure for the

580protection of children utilizing the facility.

5863. On Friday, June 5, 2009, the Department received a

596complaint concerning Handy's facility. The complaint alleged

603that two older children were asked to supervise a younger child

614without adult supervision and that transportation of the

622children had been provided without prior authorization. Based

630upon these complaints and in accordance with its rules, the

640Department commenced an investigation of the facility.

6474. Investigator Anderson (who was on call for the weekend)

657went to the facility the next day, Saturday, June 6, 2009. She

669knocked on the front door (although the entrance to the child

680care facility portion of the home was located on the side of the

693house). No one answered her knock, but a young man later came

705out of the house and advised Anderson that the facility was

716closed and that Handy was not home. 4 Anderson called the

727investigator assigned to the case (Dayna Prevost) to report her

737findings. While Anderson was making the telephone call, the

746same young man came out to her car, banged on the car window and

760loudly repeated that Handy was not home. Anderson smelled an

770odor which she believed was marijuana while talking with the

780young man. (The young man was later identified as Handy's adult

791son, Trauquece Handy.) Anderson then left the premises.

7995. The investigation was recommenced on Monday, June 8,

8082009. On that date, Investigators Wolbach and Prevost went to

818the Handy home and knocked on the side door of the home. When

831there was no answer to the knock, the investigators went to the

843front door and knocked. Again there was no answer, but they

854could hear what sounded like children inside the house. The

864investigators called Handy (who was not at home) and were told

875by Handy that she would have someone inside the house open the

887door.

8886. Despite the phone call and promise from Handy, no one

899opened the door, so the investigators called the police for

909assistance. When the police arrived, a man opened the front

919door, but the investigators were granted only limited access to

929the house. An adult female was seen inside the house, along

940with two small children. The female was questioned and said

950that she was a housekeeper and that the children inside the home

962at that time were her children. Upon receiving that

971information, the investigators again left the premises.

9787. On the next day, Tuesday, June 9, 2009, a team of

990investigators went back to the facility. This time Handy was

1000present, and the team was allowed into the house. Handy's

1010husband was also present at that time. While the team was

1021inspecting the facility, Handy's son came into the house and

1031went directly upstairs.

10348. The team reviewed Handy's records concerning attendance

1042at the facility by various children. Handy was interviewed, and

1052due to the previous suspicion of marijuana usage at the home,

1063asked to provide a urine specimen for the purpose of conducting

1074a drug screening test. (There was considerable discussion at

1083final hearing as to how the urine specimen was taken, but that

1095is not an issue in the present proceeding and will not be

1107discussed further.)

11099. At one point during the investigative review at the

1119home, a team member approached the inside stairwell and pushed

1129open the gate located at the bottom of the stairs. The gate had

1142been placed there by Handy in response to prior concerns by the

1154Department about children having access to the upstairs portion

1163of the house. The gate was apparently unlatched, although there

1173were no children present at that time near the stairwell.

1183(There was one child present in the home, but that child was in

1196another part of the house.) As the investigator started up the

1207stairs, Handy's husband said that Handy would likely not

1216appreciate them going into her private quarters. As the

1225investigator continued up the stairs, Handy came into the room

1235and voiced her opposition to anyone going upstairs.

124310. Handy had been previously advised by the Department

1252that if a gate was in place to keep children from going

1264upstairs, it would be unnecessary for the Department to inspect

1274that area during every regular inspection. It is unclear from

1284the testimony whether Handy misunderstood the Department or

1292whether the Department was only talking about its annual

1301licensure inspection. No matter, Handy told the investigator

1309that she did not want the investigator to go upstairs. The

1320investigator took that remark as a direct order that she not go

1332upstairs, so she did not do so.

133911. Instead, the Department sought injunctive relief in

1347Circuit Court to gain access to the upstairs portion of the

1358house. A hearing on the Department's motion was held the next

1369day, Wednesday, June 10, 2009. Handy received notice of the

1379hearing less than an hour before the hearing was scheduled to

1390commence. She called the Circuit Court Judge's assistant to

1399seek a continuance, but was told that the hearing must proceed.

1410The court gave Handy the option of appearing via telephone, if

1421she so desired.

142412. Handy wanted to attend the hearing in person, so she

1435went to the courthouse. There was one child at the day care

1447facility at that time. Handy could not find her approved

1457substitute on such short notice, so she called the child's

1467parent (who was Handy's cousin) and asked if it would be okay

1479for Handy's husband to watch the child while Handy attended the

1490hearing. The parent approved that arrangement.

149613. The Circuit Court entered an Order requiring Handy to

1506allow the Department "a one[-]time inspection . . . of the

1517private part of [the] home." Based upon that Order, the

1527Department sent a team of investigators back to the facility on

1538June 10, 2009, to complete its inspection.

154514. Upon completion of its investigation, the Department

1553issued the Administrative Complaint relevant to this proceeding.

1561The Administrative Complaint addresses two alleged violations by

1569Handy: First, that Handy refused to allow the Department access

1579to the entire home during the inspection. Second, that Handy

1589allowed a person who was not currently screened to supervise a

1600child in her care. An administrative fine of five hundred

1610dollars ($500.00) was proposed for each of the two violations. 5

162115. Handy does not believe she instructed the investigator

1630not to go upstairs during the June 9, 2009, inspection. She

1641remembers only telling them she did not want them to go

1652upstairs, that it was unnecessary, and that her understanding

1661from prior discussions was that the upstairs would not be

1671inspected. The investigator believes she was specifically and

1679forcefully told not to go up the stairs. In either case, it is

1692clear a court order was obtained to gain access. (At the

1703hearing in Circuit Court, Handy had reiterated that she did not

1714want the investigators to go upstairs.)

172016. The gate in question was put in place to prevent

1731children from having access to the upstairs portion of the

1741house. However, the gate was either broken or unlatched (the

1751testimony on this issue is not clear) when there was a child

1763present in the house.

176717. Handy's husband did not have a valid background

1776screening in place on June 10, 2009, that would allow him to act

1789as a provider of child care services in the facility. He had

1801been previously screened, but had not had his background

1810screening updated when it expired in June 2008. He had not been

1822re-screened because he and Handy were separated, and he did not

1833intend to be at her house to supervise children any longer. The

1845two are still married, but he only visits the house to do

1857maintenance and repairs as needed.

186218. It is clear that Handy's husband was watching the

1872child only due to the exigent circumstances surrounding the

1881court hearing and the unavailability of Handy's approved

1889substitute. Further, the child's parent was made aware of the

1899fact and had acquiesced to this arrangement. Nonetheless,

1907Handy's husband was not technically qualified to watch children

1916attending the child care center at that time.

1924CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

192719. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

1934jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of this

1945proceeding pursuant to Section 120.569 and Subsection 120.57(1),

1953Florida Statutes (2009).

195620. Where the Department makes allegations that the

1964applicant engaged in wrongdoing, the burden is on the Department

1974to prove wrongdoing. Department of Banking and Finance v.

1983Osborne Stern and Co. , 670 So. 2d 932, 934 (Fla. 1996). Factual

1995findings based on record evidence must be made indicating how

2005the conduct alleged violates the statutes or rules or otherwise

2015justifies the proposed sanctions. Mayes v. Department of

2023Children and Family Services , 801 So. 2d 980, 982 (Fla. 1st DCA

20352001).

203621. The standard of proof in this case is clear and

2047convincing evidence, because the Department is seeking to

2055discipline the license of Respondent. Ferris v. Turlington ,

2063510 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1987).

206922. Clear and convincing evidence has been described as

2078follows:

2079[C]lear and convincing evidence requires

2084that the evidence must be found to be

2092credible; the facts to which the witnesses

2099testify must be distinctly remembered; the

2105testimony must be precise and explicit and

2112the witnesses must be lacking in confusion

2119as to the facts in issue. The evidence must

2128be of such weight that it produces in the

2137mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or

2147conviction, without hesitancy, as to the

2153truth of the allegations sought to be

2160established.

2161Slomowitz v. Walker , 429 So. 2d 797, 800 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).

2173The Department met its burden of proof in this matter by clear

2185and convincing evidence. It is clear that the Department was

2195denied access to all portions of the house where the child day

2207care facility was located. The Department's testimony as to

2216what transpired in the stairwell is most credible. It is

2226further true that Handy's husband did not have the requisite

2236background screening in place at the time he watched the minor

2247child.

224823. Section 402.305, Florida Statutes, states in pertinent

2256part:

2257(2) PERSONNEL.--Minimum standards for

2261child care personnel shall include minimum

2267requirements as to:

2270(a) Good moral character based upon

2276screening. This screening shall be

2281conducted as provided in chapter 435, using

2288the level 2 standards for screening set

2295forth in that chapter.

2299* * *

2302(5) PHYSICAL FACILITIES.--Minimum

2305standards shall include requirements for

2310building conditions, indoor play space,

2315outdoor play space, napping space, bathroom

2321facilities, food preparation facilities,

2325outdoor equipment, and indoor equipment.

2330Because of the nature and duration of

2337drop-in child care, outdoor play space and

2344outdoor equipment shall not be required for

2351licensure; however, if such play space and

2358equipment are provided, then the minimum

2364standards shall apply to drop-in child care.

2371With respect to minimum standards for

2377physical facilities of a child care program

2384for school-age children which is operated in

2391a public school facility, the department

2397shall adopt the State Uniform Building Code

2404for Public Educational Facilities

2408Construction as the minimum standards,

2413regardless of the operator of the program.

2420The Legislature intends that if a child care

2428program for school-age children is operated

2434in a public school, the program need not

2442conform to standards for physical facilities

2448other than the standards adopted by the

2455Commissioner of Education.

2458* * *

2461(16) EVENING AND WEEKEND CHILD CARE.--

2467Minimum standards shall be developed by the

2474department to provide for reasonable,

2479affordable, and safe evening and weekend

2485child care. Each facility offering evening

2491or weekend child care must meet these

2498minimum standards, regardless of the origin

2504or source of the fees used to operate the

2513facility or the type of children served by

2521the facility. The department may modify by

2528rule the licensing standards contained in

2534this section to accommodate evening child

2540care. . . .

254424. Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-20.008(4) states

2551in pertinent part:

2554A screening conducted under this rule is

2561valid for five (5) years, at which time a

2570five (5) year re-screen must be conducted.

2577(a) The five (5) year re-screen is

2584required for the operator/applicant and all

2590other household members, including juveniles

2595and substitutes, and must be maintained in

2602the department's licensing file.

2606(b) The five (5) year re-screen must

2613include, at a minimum, statewide criminal

2619records checks through the Florida

2624Department of Law Enforcement and a local

2631criminal records check.

2634(c) An operator/applicant must be re-

2640screened following a break in operation of

2647the family day care home that exceeds 90

2655days. A person in this category must

2662undergo the same level of screening that was

2670required at the time of initial operation of

2678the family day care home. If

2684operator/applicant takes a leave of absence,

2690such as maternity leave, extended sick

2696leave, etc., re-screening is not required

2702unless the five (5) year re-screen has come

2710due during the leave of absence.

271625. Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-20.012(4)

2722provides:

2723Access. The family day care operator must

2730allow access to the entire premises of the

2738family day care home to inspect for

2745compliance with family day care home minimum

2752standards. Access to the family day care

2759home also includes access by the parent,

2766legal guardian, and/or custodian, to their

2772child(ren) while in care.

277626. Section 402.310, Florida Statutes, addresses

2782discipline for failure to conform to licensing requirements and

2791states in pertinent part:

2795(1)(a) The department or local licensing

2801agency may administer any of the following

2808disciplinary sanctions for a violation of

2814any provision of ss. 402.301-402.319, or the

2821rules adopted thereunder:

28241. Impose an administrative fine not to

2831exceed $100 per violation, per day.

2837However, if the violation could or does

2844cause death or serious harm, the department

2851or local licensing agency may impose an

2858administrative fine, not to exceed $500 per

2865violation per day in addition to or in lieu

2874of any other disciplinary action imposed

2880under this section.

28832. Convert a license or registration to

2890probation status and require the licensee or

2897registrant to comply with the terms of

2904probation. A probation-status license or

2909registration may not be issued for a period

2917that exceeds 6 months and the probation-

2924status license or registration may not be

2931renewed. A probation-status license or

2936registration may be suspended or revoked if

2943periodic inspection by the department or

2949local licensing agency finds that the

2955probation-status licensee or registrant is

2960not in compliance with the terms of

2967probation or that the probation-status

2972licensee or registrant is not making

2978sufficient progress toward compliance with

2983ss. 402.301-402.319.

29853. Deny, suspend, or revoke a license or

2993registration.

2994(b) In determining the appropriate

2999disciplinary action to be taken for a

3006violation as provided in paragraph (a), the

3013following factors shall be considered:

30181. The severity of the violation,

3024including the probability that death or

3030serious harm to the health or safety of any

3039person will result or has resulted, the

3046severity of the actual or potential harm,

3053and the extent to which the provisions of

3061ss. 402.301-402.319 have been violated.

30662. Actions taken by the licensee or

3073registrant to correct the violation or to

3080remedy complaints.

30823. Any previous violations of the

3088licensee or registrant.

3091(c) The department shall adopt rules to:

30981. Establish the grounds under which the

3105department may deny, suspend, or revoke a

3112license or registration or place a licensee

3119or registrant on probation status for

3125violations of ss. 402.301-402.319.

31292. Establish a uniform system of

3135procedures to impose disciplinary sanctions

3140for violations of ss. 402.301-402.319. The

3146uniform system of procedures must provide

3152for the consistent application of

3157disciplinary actions across districts and a

3163progressively increasing level of penalties

3168from predisciplinary actions, such as

3173efforts to assist licensees or registrants

3179to correct the statutory or regulatory

3185violations, and to severe disciplinary

3190sanctions for actions that jeopardize the

3196health and safety of children, such as for

3204the deliberate misuse of medications. The

3210department shall implement this subparagraph

3215on January 1, 2007, and the implementation

3222is not contingent upon a specific

3228appropriation.

3229(d) The disciplinary sanctions set forth

3235in this section apply to licensed child care

3243facilities, licensed large family child care

3249homes, and licensed or registered family day

3256care homes.

325827. Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-20.012 identifies

3265the Department's treatment of Class I violations of its

3274licensing rules for child care facilities. The Rule states in

3284pertinent part:

3286(1) Definitions.

3288* * *

3291(d) "Violation" means a finding of

3297noncompliance by the department or local

3303licensing agency with a licensing standard.

33091. "Class I Violation" is an incidence

3316of noncompliance with a Class I standard as

3324described on CF-FSP Form 5318 and CF-FSP

3331Form 5317. Class I violations are the most

3339serious in nature, pose an imminent threat

3346to a child including abuse or neglect and

3354which could or do result in death or serious

3363harm to the health, safety or well-being of

3371a child.

3373* * *

3376(3) Disciplinary Sanctions.

3379(a) Enforcement of disciplinary

3383sanctions shall be applied progressively for

3389each standard violation. In addition,

3394providers will be offered technical

3399assistance in conjunction with any

3404disciplinary sanction. The department shall

3409take into consideration the actions taken by

3416the facility to correct the violation when

3423determining the appropriate disciplinary

3427sanction.

3428(b) Each standard violation has an

3434assigned classification based on the nature

3440or severity of the violation(s) as

3446identified within CF-FSP Form 5318,

3451October 2007, Family Day Care Home Standards

3458Classification Summary, and CF-FSP Form

34635317, October 2007, Large Family Child Care

3470Home Standards Classification Summary.

3474(c) A violation of a Class II standard

3482that results in death or serious harm to a

3491child shall escalate to a Class I violation.

3499(d) Disciplinary sanctions for licensing

3504violations that occur within a two (2) year

3512period shall be progressively enforced as

3518follows:

35191. Class I Violations.

3523a. For the first and second Class I

3531violation, the department shall, upon

3536applying the factors in Section 402.310(1),

3542F.S., issue an administrative complaint

3547imposing a fine not less than $100 nor more

3556than $500 per day for each violation and may

3565impose other disciplinary sanctions in

3570addition to the fine.

3574b. For the third and subsequent Class I

3582violations, the department shall issue an

3588administrative complaint to suspend, deny or

3594revoke the license. The department, upon

3600applying the factors in Section 402.310(1),

3606F.S., may also levy a fine not less than

3615$100 nor more than $500 per day for each

3624violation in addition to any other

3630disciplinary sanction.

363228. The Department has deemed that an unscreened

3640individual left alone to supervise children in care constitutes

3649a Class I level of violation. Likewise, failure of an operator

3660to allow the Department access to all parts of the home used as

3673a child care facility constitutes a Class I violation. See

3683CF-FSP Form 5318.

368629. While it is true the two violations occurred, there

3696are very reasonable explanations which mitigate the seriousness

3704of the offenses. Handy believed the Department had given her

3714assurances that the upstairs would not be inspected. When an

3724inspection commenced, Handy felt as if the Department had

3733reneged on its promise, thus making Handy angry. Her

3742remonstrations were somewhat justified, even if her

3749understanding of the situation was in error.

375630. Handy attempted to find an appropriate caregiver for

3765the minor child and felt justified that the child's parent had

3776acquiesced to let Handy's husband provide that care. Again,

3785even though Handy was wrong in her understanding of what was

3796allowed, her actions seemed just under the circumstances. Thus,

3805the violations warrant imposition of the minimum fine amounts,

3814rather than the maximum monetary fine.

382031. Handy's refusal to acknowledge wrongdoing, even in

3828face of the evidence, is of some concern. She may be in need of

3842some remedial training as to the requirements for operating a

3852child care facility.

3855RECOMMENDATION

3856Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

3866Law, it is

3869RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department

3879of Children and Family Services imposing an administrative fine

3888of $200 against Respondent, Traceann Handy. It is further

3897RECOMMENDED that Handy be ordered to attend remedial

3905classes on the operation and management of a child care

3915facility.

3916DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of January, 2010, in

3926Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

3930R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN

3933Administrative Law Judge

3936Division of Administrative Hearings

3940The DeSoto Building

39431230 Apalachee Parkway

3946Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

3949(850) 488-9675

3951Fax Filing (850) 921-6847

3955www.doah.state.fl.us

3956Filed with the Clerk of the

3962Division of Administrative Hearings

3966this 13th day of January, 2010.

3972ENDNOTES

39731/ All statutory references are to Florida Statutes (2008),

3982unless otherwise noted.

39852/ Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order had nine exhibits

3993attached to it. Those exhibits, which were not accepted into

4003evidence during the final hearing in this matter, will not be

4014relied upon to make any finding of fact in this Recommended

4025Order.

40263/ Handy stated at the final hearing that the facility was not

4038currently operating. However, there is no pending order or

4047directive from the Department requiring closure of the facility.

4056The decision to close the facility was apparently done for

4066personal financial reasons.

40694/ The facility is licensed to operate 24 hours per day for six

4082days a week. The facility is closed on Sunday.

40915/ Neither of the two issues for which the investigation was

4102initially begun was addressed in the Administrative Complaint.

4110No competent testimony was presented at final hearing as to

4120those issues.

4122COPIES FURNISHED :

4125George Sheldon, Secretary

4128Department of Children and

4132Family Services

41341317 Winewood Boulevard

4137Building 1, Room 202

4141Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700

4144John J. Copelan, General Counsel

4149Department of Children and

4153Family Services

41551317 Winewood Boulevard

4158Building 2, Room 204

4162Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700

4165Gregory Venz, Agency Clerk

4169Department of Children and

4173Family Services

41751317 Winewood Boulevard

4178Building 2, Room 204B

4182Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700

4185Traceann Handy

4187Traceann Handy Family Daycare Home

41924423 32nd Avenue Southwest

4196Naples, Florida 34116

4199Eugenie G. Rehak, Esquire

4203Department of Children and

4207Family Services

4209Post Office Box 60085

4213Fort Myers, Florida 33901

4217NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

4223All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

423315 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions

4244to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

4255will issue the Final Order in this case.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 04/28/2010
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
PDF:
Date: 04/28/2010
Proceedings: Agency Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/05/2010
Proceedings: (Respondent's) Exceptions/ Response to Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/20/2010
Proceedings: Transmittal letter from Claudia Llado forwarding Respondent's Exhibits, which were not received into evidence, to the agency.
PDF:
Date: 01/13/2010
Proceedings: Recommended Order
PDF:
Date: 01/13/2010
Proceedings: Recommended Order (hearing held October 27, 2009 and December 10, 2009). CASE CLOSED.
PDF:
Date: 01/13/2010
Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
PDF:
Date: 12/30/2009
Proceedings: (Respondent's) Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/17/2009
Proceedings: Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law filed.
Date: 12/10/2009
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 11/06/2009
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing (hearing set for December 10, 2009; 9:00 a.m.; Fort Myers, FL).
PDF:
Date: 11/02/2009
Proceedings: Letter to Judge McKibben from E. Rehak enclosing convenient dates for continuation of hearing filed.
Date: 10/27/2009
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Partially Held; continued to date not certain.
PDF:
Date: 10/26/2009
Proceedings: Request for Continuance filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/26/2009
Proceedings: Agency's Exhibit List (exhibits not available for viewing) filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/26/2009
Proceedings: Respondent's Witness List and Exhibits filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/20/2009
Proceedings: Separate Proposed Pre-hearing Statement filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/19/2009
Proceedings: Amended Request for Official Recognition/Judiacial Notice filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/14/2009
Proceedings: Request for Official Recognition/Judicial Notice filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/30/2009
Proceedings: Order of Pre-hearing Instructions.
PDF:
Date: 09/30/2009
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing (hearing set for October 27, 2009; 9:00 a.m.; Fort Myers, FL).
PDF:
Date: 09/21/2009
Proceedings: Unilateral Response to Initial Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/14/2009
Proceedings: Response to Notice of Administrative Complaint filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/14/2009
Proceedings: Administrative Complaint filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/14/2009
Proceedings: Notice (of Agency referral) filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/14/2009
Proceedings: Initial Order.

Case Information

Judge:
R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN
Date Filed:
09/14/2009
Date Assignment:
09/14/2009
Last Docket Entry:
04/28/2010
Location:
Fort Myers, Florida
District:
Middle
Agency:
ADOPTED IN TOTO
 

Counsels

Related DOAH Cases(s) (1):

Related Florida Statute(s) (4):

Related Florida Rule(s) (2):